Friday, May 17, 2013

Analysis finds man-made CO2 emissions only remain in atmosphere for ~5 years, not thousands

The IPCC claims man-made CO2 emissions [only 4% of total CO2 emissions] remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, as opposed to the 96% of CO2 emissions from nature which have a lifetime of only about 5 years. Climate scientist Pehr Björnbom, author of a published paper finding low CO2 climate sensitivity, has a new post today on the fallacy that man-made CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. Dr. Bjornbom reviews the findings of Dr. Gösta Pettersson, Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and specialist in reaction kinetics, and author of the book 'False Alarm.' Dr. Pettersson finds the computer model ["The Bern Model'] used by the IPCC to predict CO2 lifetimes of over 100 years is highly flawed and is strongly contradicted by observations from both atomic bomb testing and atmospheric levels of CO2 [the Keeling Curve].

Gösta Pettersson points out that bomb test curve is not consistent with climate models, mainly the so-called Bern model.Here I compare the simulations with the Bern model published by Solomon et al (2009) with bomb test curve.It is clear that theory and observations are strongly in conflict.

Gösta Pettersson, who is professor emeritus of biochemistry and specialist in reaction kinetics, in his book False Alarm (see references below) and in a guest post at TCS brought the issue of bomb test curve, namely the curve of the reduction of the presence of measurable radioactive carbon dioxide from nuclear bomb tests in atmosphere.I believe that Gösta Pettersson's book is a very valuable popular science topics in climate change.It gives a skeptical, thoughtful and coherent story about climate science.One of the most central parts of the book is the story of the bomb test curve.

It is generally accepted in the climate science of the very long term, then human (anthropogenic) emissions of fossil carbon dioxide that is absorbed by the ocean and biosphere was close to 100% because the kolreservoaren in the sea is about 60 times larger than kolreservoaren the atmosphere.The big question is not whether this will happen, but how fast it goes.This is where the bomb test curve comes into play.

Bomb Test curve shows how the levels of radioactive 14C-carbon dioxide has varied over time.What has happened is that the atmospheric nuclear tests, as at Bikini Atoll as seen in the picture, generated large amounts of radioactive C14 emissions.As long as these atmospheric bomb test went so step therefore the content of this through its radioactivity directly measurable carbon drastically over the natural level (due to the formation of C14 due to cosmic rays).But finally came the great powers agreed to stop the atmospheric bomb tests, and so ceased thus these issues.In Figure 1 we see bomb test curve in the upper diagram, which is Figure 31 in the False Alarms, and a comparison of the bomb test curve and Bern model in the bottom, which is Figure 34 in False alaram.

Solomon et al (2009) have used the Bern model simulations of how carbon dioxide levels will evolve under different assumptions about the issues.They have assumed that emissions first increase roughly at the same accelerated rate as today that at a certain carbon concentration suddenly cease.In Figure 2, we see a couple of charts from their article.

In the upper diagram in Figure 2, which is part of Figure 1 in Solomon and others, have been simulated the carbon dioxide content in the air will increase if emissions increase logarithmically with 2% per year to a certain peak value, several different cases, whereupon emissions ceases.The curves after the peak value, which thus assumes that emissions have ceased, are analogous to bomb test curve.

In the lower graph, which is Figure S2 in Solomon and others, announces title that shows decay (U.S. falloff) of the human contribution to atmospheric concentrations (CO2 curves are represented by a gray cone) after the anthropogenic emissions ceased.This description matches exactly with bomb test curve that just shows the decay of the human contribution to C14 carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after emissions stopped by the prohibition of nuclear tests in the atmosphere.

In the lower graph in Figure 2 has avklingningsförloppen illustrated with the same sort of scale on the y-axis (0-1 or percentage) of the bomb test curve after the introduction into the atmosphere has ceased, not only carbon dioxide, but to several different topics.The carbon avklingningsförlopp varies according Bern model is dependent on the added amount and therefore illustrated as an ostrich.

These curves according to Solomon and others would thus equally be simulations with Bern model of the C14 carbon dioxide from the bomb sample decays in the atmosphere.To those of Solomon and others called simulations of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, decay (U.S. falloff) in the atmosphere makes no difference (although the radioactive 14C-carbon dioxide from bomb tests, incidentally anthropogenic).It is truly remarkable, then, therefore, that the simulated curves of Bern model differs so sharply against the observed bomb test curve as illustrated in Figure 1, lower graph, Figure 34 from Gösta Pettersson's book False Alarm.

Decay curves can be interpreted with the IPCC's view of the carbon cycle, Figure 3 from IPCC 2007 .

We have a faster decay in the beginning of the Bern model curve.The faster part can be interpreted as the anthropogenic (according Solomons terminology) carbon dioxide is rapidly coming to close to equilibrium only between atmosphere and ocean surface layer, and then somewhat less rapidly between the three reservoirs atmosphere, the ocean's surface and the biosphere on land.The slow continuation corresponds to anthropogenic molecules slowly leaking from ythavet to deep sea and it is this that is the very slow progress in Bern model that enables a portion of the carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for more than a thousand years.

The most notable is that the decay curve of the observations, ie.bomb test curve in the lower graph in Figure 2, no way supports such an interpretation.The observations of bomb test curve says avklingningsförloppet much faster towards a complete removal of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.This means that the Bern model and the theory of the so-called Revelle effect limiting slope is not consistent with the observations.This effect was launched by Revelle and Suess (1957).They also based their studies on the effects of anthropogenic carbon in the C14 released from the atmosphere to the ocean, but not on bombprovsskurvan because it did not exist yet.

According to the Revelle effect so can the sea for a long time to admit only about one tenth of its share of the excess carbon dioxide in the final balance due to the peculiarities of chemical equilibria present in the carbon dioxide-carbonate-water system.But there are as bomb test curve no indication whatsoever that this Revelle effect work the way the theory says.In fact, according Revelle effect at least 10 - 20% of the emissions remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years.What this disagreement between simulations and observations is due is another thing I can not give a good answer to (a guess, is the theory of deterministic to describe what happens in a complex and chaotic system), but we must face the fact, observations and theory contrary to each other in this case.

Keeling curve for koldioxidhaltens development conforms nor indeed the Solomons with several participants simulations.In the upper diagram in Figure 2 rises from Bern model simulated carbon concentration at an accelerating pace when emissions increase as they have done in reality and which is what the simulations assume.However, as shown in Figure 4, from Wood for Trees , then carbon dioxide levels increased linearly over the last twenty years.

The discussion here about the role of carbon dioxide can be seen in a wider context of the IPCC's view of how much anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions means the climate has been challenged by professors Murry Salby and Ole Humlum.I have read a textbook on atmospheric physics at the graduate level by Murry Salby and has gained a trust in his abilities so his challenge of the IPCC's approach is nothing that I can easily dismiss.

Finally, we note that the theory Solomons with several participants simulations based on strong conflict with the observations of bomb test curve.But neither Keeling curve consistent with their simulations.These are two of several other examples of where climate science has difficulty in theoretical simulations that go together with the observations.These are important warning signs that you have to use findings from climate science theory with great caution.Gösta Pettersson has even written the following in the preface to his book, False Alarm, where he makes a clear statement:

The book's title was initially fitted with a question mark.It stressed when I along the way became convinced that the current state of scientific knowledge does not give any reason for concern that our emissions of greenhouse gases are being induce catastrophic climate change.One should not cry "wolf" whenever you see a four-legged animal.

Greg Goodman says:May 19, 2013 at 7:47 amG: But they are telling us the increase is due to human emission of CO2.

Ian: Perhaps it is a good empirical proof of Henry’s Law.

yes, I think this relationship is fairly clearly temp driving d/dt(CO2) with no discernible lag. That is basic chemistry/physics laws.

That is telling us that the short term response is ocean out-gassing and little to do with emissions.That had a ratio of 8 ppm/K

It should be remembered that this is a dynamic response where T represents a temporary deviation from the temperature that would be at equilibrium with the instantaneous ocean pCO2 level.

The other factor was the mean dT/dt over that period of 0.7K/century ( this is SST, interesting to compare to hadCrut) . CO2 shows mean accel of 2.8 ppm/year/century.

That is a ratio of 4 ppm/K for the 50 year means, most of that was a warming period so this gives an estimation of the long term response.

If this is still “dynamic” it must be a very deep water response. and it is likely we need to take a variation in temp gradient into account. If the deep temperature change is , for example , half that seen at the surface that could correspond to the same 8 ppm/K seen in short term.

There may be another way to interpret the 50 year means.

There is also an interesting repetition in d/dt CO2: 1998 is a perfect replay or 1974http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=232

That plot gives a slightly different acceleration of CO2 but not far off.Greg Goodman says:May 19, 2013 at 7:52 amThe finite, positive dT/dt means something is warming the ocean system and causing it to be generally slightly ahead of equilibrium at least during this warming segment.Greg Goodman says:May 19, 2013 at 8:04 amBTW it takes less than a hour to re-equilibrate to a change on temp/CO2 in agitated water. In this context it is instantaneous at the surface.

Deeper there will be delays associated with mixing of water volumes but not CO2 concentration itself.

5.15×e6 gigatonnes (total atmosphere)1.48e-6 PPM to mass conversion0.40 (40% – the common figure for retained emissions – it was about 37.5% from Sept 2013 to Sept 2014.)120 PPM CO2 excess in the atmosphere36 gigatonnes fossil fuel emissions in 2013.

Total excess CO2 in atmosphere remaining from human emissions and other sources is 5.15xE6 * 1.48E-6* 120 = 915 gigatonnes CO2.Rate of removal is 36*0.6 = 21.6Mean lifetime is 915/21.6 = 42 years.

So the maximum lifetime for CO2 excluding outgassing from the ocean and land due to increased temperature or emissions from non-fossil is 42 years.

CO2 lifetime figures longer than 42 years are simply wrong.

When other emissions sources are included the lifetime is appropriately reduced.

Since the total CO2 in the current climate system is above 40,000 gigatonnes we are shifting the long term equilbrium point less than 1/1000 (0.1% or 36/40,000) per year.

Since there are a number of biomass and sediment sinks that represent long term CO2 removal from the system this is a worst case.

Calcite and other deposits in the ocean will buffer an increase in CO2 in the ocean. There is a PH difference of about 1-3 between the Western and Eastern shores of Lake Michigan that appears to be due in part to calcite/carbonate deposits on the eastern shore.

There are 2795 gigatonnes of CO2 in fossil fuel reserves (we will use 3000 because I like round numbers).The retention rate is under 40% (we will use 40%).There are 5.15xE6 * 1.48E-6 * 400 = 3050 gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yes the rate of removal will reduce – but 400 PPM isn’t harmful (we’ve proven that). I expect that up to 557 PPM won’t be harmful either. And the rate of removal at 557 PPM will be much higher. There doesn’t seem to be a coherent theory that posits CO2 levels over 600 PPM. Doubled CO2 would require 100% utilization of more than 2.6 times known fossil fuel reserves, assuming that the increase in the pCO2 concentration ocean/atmosphere differential and land plant growth increase doesn’t accelerate the removal rate.